Quick Links

Millions never had the chance for first generation.

Comments

To be completely fair, I'll probably try it regardless if the extreme group play style isn't my cup of tea. The whole genre has been so stale for the last few years, that basically any (non-eastern) game that brings something decent to the table will get a chance.

They just have to think of something nifty, so that they can implement the whole group based gameplay, without having to wait for ages. If they really stick to the old oldschool, then yeah, I don't see it catching on. There's a reason why companies like Uber exist.

unorthodox parties can be possible. But again, the developers need to make it so it's possible.

This is exactly the point.. Will they, can they create the environment (systems/mechanics/skills/world design) for such emergent gameplay that we saw in eq. I hope so, but it is so hard to do on purpose, and at the same time let it go out of your(the developer) control.

The idea of "balance" is always a challenge.

I do think it's possible to aim for the idea to make different party configurations viable. Whether they want to is another thing.

I have to confess when WOW first launched I fully embraced the change it brought the genre.

I didn't really embrace it (only played in one beta and when I did buy the game at launch I only logged in a few times) but I loved the idea of "the quest" and framing one's activities with a story.

However, when I would stake a quest, say, to kill 10 of these pumpkin thingies in a farmer's field, I would stay and continue beyond the 10 kills.

It seems that some games literally have you collecting or killing 3 and then running back (or just completing the quest).

That's not fun. That's why I've pretty much given up on quests.

I've been playing a little bit of Lord of the Rings Online and though I have stopped most of the quests, I had a blast trying to find my way to Gondor. It seems there is a large orc infestation in the way so I had to fight my way through (which was two nights worth) and then when I couldn't seem to find the road I jumped in the water which immediately took away 2000 hp every 2 or so seconds (hate when developers do this just to keep lower level people out).

Because of my regen it wasn't a big deal and I finally found myself on a bank where I could continue to Gondor. Then there was a small quest which I now regret taking but I want to experience the "end" so decided to do some of the quests.

Point is, I want to go on an adventure and in my play sessions that's what I do. I had more fun making my way to Gondor than going to some quest hub and marking off the quests. These little busy work tasks that infest these games ruin it.

I really enjoyed the change of pace when WOW launched, didn't mind running everywhere as "efficiency" was not something I cared about, at not until I started leveling alts.

Like you, after playing far too many quest driven themeparks I no longer enjoy the mechanic.

These days if given a quest, as often happens in Fallout 3 /4 I normally took some unusual path to the objective, preferably on a route I had to battle furiously through, or...lead to new discoveries.

It could take days to complete a quest, as it wasn't my primary goal, mostly just a vehicle to set off in a particular direction.

I am far more random in my gameplay these days. In NMS despite playing over 100 hours I've visited three star systems in total.

Most evenings I just look at my HUD and set off to some highlighted anomaly and explore it and the area around it.

Soon I'll be doing the same to the galactic map as soon as I get my Explorer class ship fully optimized for deep space travel.

Well, and after I find a damn armorer for my base, none available for hire in my current 3 systems.

Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing POE at the moment.

Fools find no pleasure in understanding, but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™

"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon

I have to confess when WOW first launched I fully embraced the change it brought the genre.

I didn't really embrace it (only played in one beta and when I did buy the game at launch I only logged in a few times) but I loved the idea of "the quest" and framing one's activities with a story.

However, when I would stake a quest, say, to kill 10 of these pumpkin thingies in a farmer's field, I would stay and continue beyond the 10 kills.

It seems that some games literally have you collecting or killing 3 and then running back (or just completing the quest).

That's not fun. That's why I've pretty much given up on quests.

I've been playing a little bit of Lord of the Rings Online and though I have stopped most of the quests, I had a blast trying to find my way to Gondor. It seems there is a large orc infestation in the way so I had to fight my way through (which was two nights worth) and then when I couldn't seem to find the road I jumped in the water which immediately took away 2000 hp every 2 or so seconds (hate when developers do this just to keep lower level people out).

Because of my regen it wasn't a big deal and I finally found myself on a bank where I could continue to Gondor. Then there was a small quest which I now regret taking but I want to experience the "end" so decided to do some of the quests.

Point is, I want to go on an adventure and in my play sessions that's what I do. I had more fun making my way to Gondor than going to some quest hub and marking off the quests. These little busy work tasks that infest these games ruin it.

I really enjoyed the change of pace when WOW launched, didn't mind running everywhere as "efficiency" was not something I cared about, at not until I started leveling alts.

Like you, after playing far too many quest driven themeparks I no longer enjoy the mechanic.

These days if given a quest, as often happens in Fallout 3 /4 I normally took some unusual path to the objective, preferably on a route I had to battle furiously through, or...lead to new discoveries.

It could take days to complete a quest, as it wasn't my primary goal, mostly just a vehicle to set off in a particular direction.

I am far more random in my gameplay these days. In NMS despite playing over 100 hours I've visited three star systems in total.

Most evenings I just look at my HUD and set off to some highlighted anomaly and explore it and the area around it.

Soon I'll be doing the same to the galactic map as soon as I get my Explorer class ship fully optimized for deep space travel.

Well, and after I find a damn armorer for my base, none available for hire in my current 3 systems.

You know, there's a modern system that promotes this that a lot of pantheon fans despise....level scaling.

Not saying it's impossible without it, but it does help make everything you do relevant regardless of "level".

Part of the problem with this is the conditioning that has occurred though. Nobody just wanders out in a given direction to see whats there because modern games are all about streamlining the experience.

Personally, I feel like the best practice there is to include quests but don't have them grant massive amounts of XP. Instead have them grant unique rewards like gear that can't be crafted, etc.

Increase the amount of XP mobs out in the world give, to incentivize exploring. Even for the more modern/casual player.....what's the difference between 1k boring fetch quests and wandering around killing stuff while you explore? Both have their pitfalls, but you only see/do what the devs want you to see/do when you're riding the rails.

And very few people will want to go back. I backed Pantheon; but holy shit I cannot WAIT for all the people who clamor for this game's release and swear they want a totally faithful EQ replica to start bitching and moaning when they can't progress their character because there's not enough people with the right class online in their level range etc etc etc. and realize how wrong they are.

That seems really petty. Really? You want people to have a bad time and bitch and moan?

If the devs do their job right then there should be several ways to put a party together. I recall once in Lineage 2 that a lot of spellhowlers couldn't find a party so they all partied together and were very successful in the Tower of Insolence where they pretty much just mowed things down before the party was in danger.

unorthodox parties can be possible. But again, the developers need to make it so it's possible.

So that they finally have some sort of closure on the whole "Old school was so much better" soapbox BS.

yeah but let's not buy into those with extremist opinions.

First of all, the whole "Old School was so much better" idea is true. But to them.

But anyone saying that those games are categorically better than anything on the market and that those who don't agree with them are "wrong" are fringe people. Just like those who say the opposite and that those old games are categorically bad and that no one in their right mind would like them or the "rose colored glasses" argument.

If someone stands on a soapbox, it's exactly that "a soapbox."

Let's not get caught up in ridiculous nerd pissing matches just because a few people are more intense than they should be about video games.

I mean, I backed Pantheon....so it's not that I am uninterested in the idea of a more old-school approach.

It just gets old listening to so many people like myself who have experienced it claim that it was the pinnacle of gaming or something.

I think Pantheon will provide a rare opportunity to finally put all that to the test and provide some perspective.

You are definitely correct in that it should not bother me; thanks for pointing that out.

Well, again, I think to them it was the Pinnacle of gaming.

I mean, it was for me as far as mmo's as I had the best time with those earlier games. Part of that was the discovery of the genre but a good part was the need to work together "on some level." and the community that it created.

Believe me, I get that the bickering and pettiness of dorkdom can get really annoying but I just remind myself that is a small subset of the great people who do play these games. Many of them don't post on forums, they just buy and play.

I do remember the opening of Vanguard. The excitement for an old school mmo was there. Masses of people questing in every starter zone. It only failed because of buggy code, and not because it was old school. If pantheon can get as many people on opening day as Vanguard did it will be fine.

edit: and before the scaremongers claim that vanguard wasnt really old school - its close enough as vg 2 is approximately what Pantheon is shooting for. Vanguard drew the crowds and so will Pantheon (assuming it does release).

I do remember the opening of Vanguard. The excitement for an old school mmo was there. Masses of people questing in every starter zone. It only failed because of buggy code, and not because it was old school. If pantheon can get as many people on opening day as Vanguard did it will be fine.

Nice thoughts but gamers have swarmed the beginning every new MMO since the first generation, yet post WOW the numbers for most quickly tailed off for.....reasons.

No way to know if better production standards really would have resulted in any great success or not, all we know is what did happen.

Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing POE at the moment.

Fools find no pleasure in understanding, but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™

"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon

Indies have put out old school MMO's and none have picked up millions of players and if they did you could be sure AAA studios would start putting them out like crazy. AAA studios don't just remember the good old days and take a shot on bringing them back, they do focus groups, and the focus groups I've been in usually end up with people comparing prototype games to what's out now.

Sure there are people who want forced grouping and hard death penalties with corpse runs, just as there are people who like to do civil war reenactments on the weekends and people who don't drive cars and still take a horse everywhere they need to go. The thing is I believe the masses naturally gravitate to the latest and greatest tech.

"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey

I do remember the opening of Vanguard. The excitement for an old school mmo was there. Masses of people questing in every starter zone. It only failed because of buggy code, and not because it was old school. If pantheon can get as many people on opening day as Vanguard did it will be fine.

Nice thoughts but gamers have swarmed the beginning every new MMO since the first generation, yet post WOW the numbers for most quickly tailed off for.....reasons.

No way to know if better production standards really would have resulted in any great success or not, all we know is what did happen.

That's exactly what will happen with Pantheon, "bored" players along with people just wanting something new as well as fans will try it, we'll then get the "this game sucks"/"why this game will fail" posts, always reflecting the personal tastes of the poster, and then people will leave and the game will be left with the actual people who wanted to play it all along. The people the game was actually made for.

As long as the developers are realistic with their player base numbers there shouldn't be too many issues.

I'm also sure that the developers will have to change tack a few times, maybe have to revisit some decisions, possibly about monetization and we will then get the "they lied/they promised" posts.

I do remember the opening of Vanguard. The excitement for an old school mmo was there. Masses of people questing in every starter zone. It only failed because of buggy code, and not because it was old school. If pantheon can get as many people on opening day as Vanguard did it will be fine.

edit: and before the scaremongers claim that vanguard wasnt really old school - its close enough as vg 2 is approximately what Pantheon is shooting for. Vanguard drew the crowds and so will Pantheon (assuming it does release).

The problem vanguard had was everything was heavily group based.

That is fine at launch

But I got in about a year later, and it was really hard to find groups after I passed the early levels. That is a big part because so many quit playing, but also most people who stuck with vanguard were at endgame.

How is pantheon (ignoring the obvious bring friends which many MMOers don't have friends that like MMOs) going to handle a top heavy playerbase and bring in new players that will have a much harder time finding a group to do lower level content with?

Everquest 1 had the same problem that Vanguard did. So many people at endgame, so little playerbase mid game.

EQ1/Vanguard both had enough players early levels. Mostly from people just trying them out. Get to midgame and both games were very stagnant of players making groups near impossible to get into.

Also down leveling isn't the answer. You could downlevel in vanguard too, and most people still didn't group with lower levels to do dungeons with, even less wanted to do lower level group based quests.

Look at FFXIV. It's a newer version of this old model and it was done wrong at 1st and suffered. But SE redesigned the game from the ground up. And now as a newer model design, it was a huge success and remains so. Wildstar, also a new design did not meet with similar success.

What is my point in this?

A well designed and implemented game will attract and retain players. A poorly designed game may or may not attract players, but it cannot retain them for long. I don't think it matters what your design model is. If your game sucks, you will not have the player base you want. But a good game will endure.

I don't care that Pantheon is expected to be the spiritual successor to EQ1. It still has to be a good game in its own right. Something that seems to be missing from far too many MMORPGs that have been released over the years.

Ultimately, I fear what will happen is this, The game will release and not be anything like it's supposed to be and just doesn't have that EQ1 "spirit" to it. Then, come the excuses like, No one wants an old school MMO. Or that the developers will blame the players or one of the other number of excuses offered up by developers other than the truth or admission that they released a turd.

I do remember the opening of Vanguard. The excitement for an old school mmo was there. Masses of people questing in every starter zone. It only failed because of buggy code, and not because it was old school. If pantheon can get as many people on opening day as Vanguard did it will be fine.

edit: and before the scaremongers claim that vanguard wasnt really old school - its close enough as vg 2 is approximately what Pantheon is shooting for. Vanguard drew the crowds and so will Pantheon (assuming it does release).

The problem vanguard had was everything was heavily group based.

That is fine at launch

But I got in about a year later, and it was really hard to find groups after I passed the early levels. That is a big part because so many quit playing, but also most people who stuck with vanguard were at endgame.

How is pantheon (ignoring the obvious bring friends which many MMOers don't have friends that like MMOs) going to handle a top heavy playerbase and bring in new players that will have a much harder time finding a group to do lower level content with?

Everquest 1 had the same problem that Vanguard did. So many people at endgame, so little playerbase mid game.

EQ1/Vanguard both had enough players early levels. Mostly from people just trying them out. Get to midgame and both games were very stagnant of players making groups near impossible to get into.

Also down leveling isn't the answer. You could downlevel in vanguard too, and most people still didn't group with lower levels to do dungeons with, even less wanted to do lower level group based quests.

Games that are about the journey should look to consistently keep the leveling content fresh, not just tack on more and more endgame levels and content.

It's been a huge failure in my opinion of MMORPG devs not to spend more time reiterating on the leveling experience. Games with a focus on group play throughout the leveling experience will find it paramount to entice all players, new and old, to roll new characters periodically and experience the leveling process again in a new and fun way.

unorthodox parties can be possible. But again, the developers need to make it so it's possible.

This is exactly the point.. Will they, can they create the environment (systems/mechanics/skills/world design) for such emergent gameplay that we saw in eq. I hope so, but it is so hard to do on purpose, and at the same time let it go out of your(the developer) control.

This is such an overlooked point.

People who followed the old games(not just EQ, but UO, etc., as well) should remember that much of what was taking place was experimental and accidental.

Games today are much more polished and deliberately focused on certain things than the older generations.

A lot of the things that people loved so much about those older games weren't even intended by the designers. So, now that programmers and designers actually know what they are doing, it's a lot harder to get those freak features to pop up.

Game development is so much more polished and streamlined today than it was back in the 90s. Particularly in the online games genre, people are so much more knowledgeable and experienced nowadays.

As all artists will tell you, sometimes the best art comes from the chaos of those random mistakes. Beauty often comes out of the flaws.

I like GW2 with their living story and somewhat regular and constant updates. As to grouping it's nice but takes up a lot of time and commitment to group which is probably why solo content is so popular, you literally set your own schedule and if the phone rings or something goes bump in the night, you can just log or hide your character while you deal with real world issues without forcing the group to wait or getting kicked and waiting for another group. Not to mention, less drama.

If Pantheon is to succeed, and I hope they do, I hope they do more then replicate an old school experience as I tend to get that, 'been there, done that' feeling, get bored and leave. I'd like to see more spells and skills never before seen and experienced. And I agree with the fact that if it's a great game people will want to play it no matter what type of game it is. But great games are great because they stand out from the crowd because they are different and not just retro.

"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey

To be completely fair, I'll probably try it regardless if the extreme group play style isn't my cup of tea. The whole genre has been so stale for the last few years, that basically any (non-eastern) game that brings something decent to the table will get a chance.

They just have to think of something nifty, so that they can implement the whole group based gameplay, without having to wait for ages. If they really stick to the old oldschool, then yeah, I don't see it catching on. There's a reason why companies like Uber exist.

The first part has a lot of truth, I feel many will try it just for that reason.

A lot of people will say "hay, what the hell, its about time we had a Western game with out a cash shop".

Remember the old saying about you can't eat just one potato chip. Many may try it, find it different, play it more make a friend, do a few things and get hooked.

There is also the possibility Odd Ball Groups of players that don't even play the game as intended and have their own click. Maybe a group of pot smokers !....Sounds funny, but it could be true

Look at FFXIV. It's a newer version of this old model and it was done wrong at 1st and suffered. But SE redesigned the game from the ground up. And now as a newer model design, it was a huge success and remains so. Wildstar, also a new design did not meet with similar success.

What is my point in this?

A well designed and implemented game will attract and retain players. A poorly designed game may or may not attract players, but it cannot retain them for long. I don't think it matters what your design model is. If your game sucks, you will not have the player base you want. But a good game will endure.

I don't care that Pantheon is expected to be the spiritual successor to EQ1. It still has to be a good game in its own right. Something that seems to be missing from far too many MMORPGs that have been released over the years.

^^ Exactly this. Even if Pantheon starts small, if it can retain players (with good gameplay, content and quality) then it will grow.

Look at FFXIV. It's a newer version of this old model and it was done wrong at 1st and suffered. But SE redesigned the game from the ground up. And now as a newer model design, it was a huge success and remains so. Wildstar, also a new design did not meet with similar success.

What is my point in this?

A well designed and implemented game will attract and retain players. A poorly designed game may or may not attract players, but it cannot retain them for long. I don't think it matters what your design model is. If your game sucks, you will not have the player base you want. But a good game will endure.

I don't care that Pantheon is expected to be the spiritual successor to EQ1. It still has to be a good game in its own right. Something that seems to be missing from far too many MMORPGs that have been released over the years.

^^ Exactly this. Even if Pantheon starts small, if it can retain players (with good gameplay, content and quality) then it will grow.

Perhaps, but can you tell me the names of all MMORPGS released in the past 13 years which have succeeded in such a manner, and did so on a shoestring budget to boot?

Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing POE at the moment.

Fools find no pleasure in understanding, but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™

"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon

Well it was done again 4 years later by FFXI and imo much better than EQ1.Reason it got left behind was WOW,the massive influx of new online gamer didn't know anything about the EQ1/FFXI design,they knew Warcraft,battle.net,Diablo,so they quickly knew and wanted to play WOW.

For some like myself,idc what a developer did before or that i might like one of their games,i simply look for a type of game design that i will enjoy.Problem is we no longer got CHOICE because all the new upstart developers saw how much fast money Wow was making and jumped all over that bandwagon with clone after clone after clone.

We still see the same bandwagon jumping,Farmville,then tons of Farmville copy cats,Mobas then tons of mobas,HS hits mainstream,tons of TCG's,Battle Royale's,tons more to follow.

All these new devs have ZERO confidence,so they aim for a game design that is proving to be popular.Problem with their bandwagon jumping is that there is only enough room for a few at the top,the rest won't make it.

Point being?Be a LEADER in game design,be creative,quit being a follower/copycat game designer.

Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.

1 If you have a shoe string budget,you really should NOT be attempting a MMORPG.2 Unlike the chicken shits of today needing their games funded by gamer's taking ZERO risks,devs of old went into DEBT.FFXI was funded bby a large develoepr "Square Enix"so in soem way they had the money,however ,they went into large debt,they banked on their game being a success so much that they figured it would take 5 years to turn a profit.

NOBODY and i mean NOBODY is showing us that kind of confidence now a days,instead all the developers want INSTANT profits with little effort.

These same morals were talked about when crowd funding was just coming of age.Devs not investing their own money/debt are basically saying or telling us they have NO confidence in their product or themselves.

Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.

unorthodox parties can be possible. But again, the developers need to make it so it's possible.

This is exactly the point.. Will they, can they create the environment (systems/mechanics/skills/world design) for such emergent gameplay that we saw in eq. I hope so, but it is so hard to do on purpose, and at the same time let it go out of your(the developer) control.

The idea of "balance" is always a challenge.

I do think it's possible to aim for the idea to make different party configurations viable. Whether they want to is another thing.

I think making a class desirable rather than balanced is much more important in a PvE game. Groups are not as hard to come by if all classes are desired and content doesn't require specific group configurations to be successful. If every variation of an archetype can do their basic job, groups can form up without the cleric specifically and can be fine with a druid or shaman, same goes for tanks and crowd control. One thing I can say about EverQuest II is that they did this quite well with their class system.

unorthodox parties can be possible. But again, the developers need to make it so it's possible.

This is exactly the point.. Will they, can they create the environment (systems/mechanics/skills/world design) for such emergent gameplay that we saw in eq. I hope so, but it is so hard to do on purpose, and at the same time let it go out of your(the developer) control.

The idea of "balance" is always a challenge.

I do think it's possible to aim for the idea to make different party configurations viable. Whether they want to is another thing.

I think making a class desirable rather than balanced is much more important in a PvE game. Groups are not as hard to come by if all classes are desired and content doesn't require specific group configurations to be successful. If every variation of an archetype can do their basic job, groups can form up without the cleric specifically and can be fine with a druid or shaman, same goes for tanks and crowd control. One thing I can say about EverQuest II is that they did this quite well with their class system.

That's kind of what I mean by "balanced." Meaning that all classes can be interesting, have utility, and that different combinations can still be successful though not successful in the same way as other combinations.

I've been in groups with unorthodox combinations (I absolutely don't have to go into a dungeon with the perfect group nor do I care if we "win" or not) and some of them have been amazing. Some not so much but some of those were with people who really wanted to be in the perfect party and had already doomed us from the start.